IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /127/2014.
Date of Filing: 10.09.2014. Date of Final Order: 03.03.2016
Complainant: Md. Amirual Islam, S/O Md. Nazed Ali Sk. Vill. Kanchantala, Kamat, P.O. Dhuliyan,
Ward No. 12, P.S. Samserganj, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin-7422202.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Station Manager, Dhuliyan Customer Care Centre, P.O. Dhuliyan, P.S. Samserganj,
Dist. Murshidabad.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for installation of new connection.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant applied for new electric connection 12.3.14 and as per demand he deposited Rs.953/- for such new connection. But, for distance one pole is required to be erected. Inspite of several requests the same pole has not been erected and for that electric connection has not yet been given. Then, he has been compelled to file this complaint. Hence, the instant case.
The Written version filed by the OP-WBSEDCL, in brief, is that during inspection on 28.03.14 after deposit of Rs.953/- through on line by the complainant it was found that the new connection involves erection of 1 No. PCC Pole, conductor SPN of 50 meters and includes a road crossing. During inspection here was an objection and way leave problem for erection of PCC Pole and drawal of line from existing L.T.O.H. The complainant never executed any such agreement as per norms of WBSEDCL. The OP issued a letter vide Memo No. DHN/980 to the complainant regarding the w ay leave problem and the incomplete application. But the complainant did not take any positive steps and for that the connection of the petitioner could not be effected in view of existing norms of the WBSEDCL. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The petition is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Point for decision.
- Whether the petition is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant has cause of action to the file the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
This complaint is for installation of new connection
The complainant’s case is that for non-erection of one electric pole new connection has not been given in spite of deposit of Rs.935 for the purpose as per their demand.
On the other hand, the OP-WBSEDCL’s case is that the complainant applied for connection through one line. The complainant never executed the required agreement and way leave problem for erection of electric pole has not been solved for non-taking steps by the complainant in spite of issuing letter No. DHN/980 dt. 31.3.14 to him by the OP.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit and the Xerox copies of question for new connection.
On the other hand, the OP –WBSEDCL has filed the letter No. 980 dt. 31.3.14 to show that the OP intimated that the complainant has not filed the annexure B and B along with the application which are agreement and no objection regarding way leave for erection of Pole and the same is very essential.
In this case the complainant has adduced evidence on-affidavit wherein he has not deposed anything to the effect that he filed no-objection regarding way-leave and required agreement with the application for new electric connection as per rule.
During hearing of argument the complainant has not turned up in spite of giving sufficient opportunity.
For absence of no-objection regarding way leave for erection of pole and the required agreement which are vital one this forum has no scope to direct the OP to provide electric connection without complying with the required above formalities by submitting no-objection for w ay leave and agreement and other formalities for getting electric line.
Considering the above discussions as a whole we find that all these points are disposed of in part in favour of the complainant and as such the complaint be allowed subject to submission of non-objection regarding way leave and required agreement and other formalities as per rule by the complainant.
Considering the above facts and circumstances particularly for non-compliance of the above vital formalities for obtaining electric connection, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and cost.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 127/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part without any order as to cost .
Complainant is directed to submit (i) no-objection regarding way-leave, (ii) agreement, and (iii) comply with other formalities as per rule.
The OP is directed to effect electric connection in the premises of the complainant within 15 days after compliance of (i), (ii) and (iii) as mentioned in the ordering portion, by the complainant.
In default, the OP is to pay Rs.50 per day’s delay as fine and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account.”
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
